Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/53180

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


53180[edit]

(3/12/0) FINAL — closed per WP:SNOW — TKD::Talk 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

53180 (talk · contribs) - A down to earth editor who's been contributing to Wikipedia for over 2 years 53180 23:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to edit count, it is low because instead of making many consecutive edits to one page, I make sure I have everything done in one edit, I preview pages countless times before I save them.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to help revert vandalism, arbitrate in situations requiring admin intervention, block the IPs of repeated vandals and users who do not understand how Wikipedia works and are "learning destructively", who I would then do my best to help learn to use Wikipedia in a constructive way. I would protect pages from being moved to incorrect titles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most fond of the articles that I have completely rewritten for better use. I try to take the most important information in an article and build on that. I also clean up articles and keep the most important things. I re-organize articles for better flow and organization.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The biggest conflict I was involved in was the moving of the article List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel to various nonsensical names. It was not at all stressful however, and with the help of an administrator, this still frequent problem has been kept under control.

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/53180 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support. A good user who seems trustworthy enough. I would recommend trying again in a few months, and to listen to the advice in the opposes. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I agree with what Matt/TheFearow said. Acalamari 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'll wait on this one. Acalamari 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per TheFearow ~ Infrangible 02:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as per TheFearow.Harlowraman 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose per this, and not understanding what fair use images are as well as notability. Miranda 00:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You just don't have enough experience for me to really judge how you would handle the tools. A good example is that you haven't really been involved in contentious move discussions, but want to protect pages against moves, in what cases, I can't tell. Non-protection is the default option.--Chaser - T 00:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Not enough experience. -Lemonflash(do something) 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Not enough experience, and per Miranda. Politics rule 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000-3,000 edits, and have a solid track record of several months as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made less than 700 edits, and have only been a consistent, regular contributor for the past 4 months. You also need more experience with editing in the Wikipedia space (which builds experience and familiarlity with the type of processes and policies that admins are expected to deal with), which you've currently edited in less than 10 times. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience. Zaxem 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Not enough experience. I'm not trying to promote editcountis, but 690 is a bit too low. --Hirohisat Talk 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Identical answers as Luvcraft on xyr rfa. Extremely suspicious. I'm filing a WP:SSP report. J-stan TalkContribs 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, sorry. I should not have been so quick to jump the gun. I should have let you have your say. Again, sorry. J-stan TalkContribs 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Luvcraft could have possibly just copied 53180's answers. Though they do seem suspicious, same style nomination too. T Rex | talk 02:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Luvcraft started their RfA two hours before. This one was started at 23:20 yesterday UTC, and luvcraft's was closed an hour later. I don't think luvcraft liked what they saw, so they sent another account on an RfA. I will wait until I here from 52180 to report. J-stan TalkContribs 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I have to echo the concerns of Zaxem, Hirohisat, and especially Miranda's notation of your talk page. I'm also concerned along with J-Stan that your question responses are extremely similar to those used on Luvcraft's recent RfA. In addition to those concerns, you have repeatedly failed to follow image guidelines, and while I understand your explanation as to your low count, and I also don't necessarily think edit count is an infallible indicator of quality, as Hirohisat mentioned, the fact is that a certain number of edits go along with gaining experience, and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Another issue of concern is your consistent lack of edit summary, and I'd strongly suggest that you go into your edit preferences, and set it so Wikipedia reminds you if you've forgotten one. Providing an explanation of your edits is important for all editors, but perhaps even more important for someone who aspires to be an administrator. Looking at your edit breakdown, I see no activity on WP:ANI, WP:UAA, WP:RFCN, or discussions in areas such as AfD, project space, etc. While certainly not a requirement, participation in these areas not only help familiarize you with the underlying policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but also demonstrate your interaction with others, and your ability to work with a team. I would suggest that you delve deeper into the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, participate in some projects, get some more mainspace activity, and remember to use your edit summary. In conclusion, I don't feel that currently, you have sufficient knowledge in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to effectively use administrative tools, but with some work and time, that can change, and you could try again. Ariel♥Gold 02:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Chaser's comments; a general lack of experience and familiarity with policy application. The terse and vague answers here are unacceptable. VanTucky (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose mainspace contributions are good but the project space count is extreemly low. -Icewedge 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose and suggest pull Per Miranda. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/53180&oldid=1142553042"